Paramjit Oberoi wrote:
>>>If you like simplicity, take a look at the Boost license:
>>>>>>http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt>>>>Not bad... sort of like the MIT license I linked to above, only,
>>uh, slightly less simple, eh? <wink>
>> Yeah, I hadn't looked at the MIT license for a long time, and I didn't
> realise it was even shorter. The only difference between the two seems to
> be that the Boost license does not require any copyright notices to be
> present in binary redistributions.
Agreed, on the surface, but there are enough small wording changes in
other areas, which might or might not have an important effect on the
construed meaning, depending on whether or not one happened to be a
lawyer or other agent of the court, that inasmuch as it would at first
appear to be reasonable for me to agree fully with you, I believe I am
obligated to say that in my opinion it is entirely unclear just how much
of a difference between the two there might be. E&OE. Carpe diem,
caveat emptor, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum.
-legalistically y'rs, ;-)
Peter